Thursday, December 27, 2012

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Ed Broadbent responds to the Fraser Institute's attempts to minimize the importance of growing inequality:

Economists tell us the chances of finding and keeping a good job
today depend more than ever on a high level of education and skills
required by new technologies in the marketplace and the loss of
unskilled jobs to developing countries. But we have largely failed to
equip the unemployed and precariously employed with the skills they need
to survive in a new economy. Nor have we adequately increased income
supports like the Working Income Tax Benefit for those who work hard but
still cannot get ahead.

We cannot dismiss growing inequality
by pretending, as the Fraser Institute does, that all Canadians are
still getting the equal chances that existed a generation ago. Gross
income inequalities destroy equality of opportunity, and even the
advantages of any rising incomes for the poor can be wiped out by a less
progressive system of taxation or cuts in public investment. The gap
between the rich and the poor, and the eating away of the middle class,
are cementing the privileges of the most affluent and undermining the
legitimate hopes of those who want to do much better.

Canadian values demand that we do
something about rising inequality before we turn into a winner-take-all
society with a permanent underclass. We are in this together, and that
means we must once again care and share.

- Petti Fong reports on the Cons' choice to allow HD Mining's illegal whims to override a court order when it comes to the disclosure of temporary work permit records, while Dr. Dawg wonders whether this means we're officially granting China extraterritorial rights over Canada.

- Meanwhile, Will Campbell notes that civil servants pointed out the weakness of the Cons' voluntary drug shortage reporting long before patients started to suffer from a lack of notice that their medications were disappearing. And Mike de Souza's year-end feature reflects on the Cons' attacks on the environment.

- But let's listen to a couple of voices pointing out that we need to focus on what can be done to improve matters, not merely what isn't being done by our current rulers. Zoe Williams writes that defeatism ultimately helps the right-wing cause by ruling out the possibility of change for the better - and most of her message is readily transferable to the Canadian scene:

On the subject of benefits, can we pause to consider how incredibly
low that figure of fraud is? In so many other areas of dishonesty – tax
avoidance, expenses claims – the rot is never contained to a small core,
it always spreads over time, it becomes peer-normalised and then grows
exponentially, until the only people who aren't doing it are cranks. And
yet, here we are, with this body of people among whom the number of
fraudsters is tiny. On top of the honesty, consider in-work benefits,
the number of people doing jobs that won't cover their rent, won't cover
their childcare, won't put food on the table without government subsidy
– working, in other words, for the sheer joy of work. This is a work
ethic to die for.

The housing crisis is not a threat, it's
an opportunity. We need more social housing, we need a more vigorous
construction industry, and we need things for a government to invest in,
rather than rounds of quantitative easing, delivering money into the
hands of the top 5% and eroding pension annuities. We could climb out of
recession on the back of this "crisis" at the same time as halting the
hegemony of the private landlord, which is perverting wage
spending-power and intensifying inequality. This is one of the few
levers the government could actually pull to influence the economy.

This
government wants to govern a nation of crooks, fighting over the last
crust of bread. In fact, we are an honest, industrious people with
natural resources coming out of our well-educated, disease-free ears.
Happy New Year.

- And finally, Aaron Genest makes a more general case for basing our attempts to speak out and organize on optimism rather than fear:

I think that we (as campaigners) should be telling people up front
that it will be a long haul. Tell them that the issues are complex, that
interests for the status quo are well entrenched, and that,
despite lots of people and investment, it may take years of continued
effort before we see significant progress. On any issue. This means, of
course, that the fear-based approach to galvanizing action will fail.

As well it should.

Making people afraid, whether for good or for evil, is the wrong way
to approach change. It makes them reactionary, less likely to recognize
positive movement (on either side of an issue), and less likely to be
taken seriously. It polarizes a debate. So while fear-based tactics are
highly successful in getting people to click a Like button or to donate
$10 right now, they harm the long term goal of creating an
active, politically astute (populace) willing to have serious policy
discussions at every level.

So let’s commit to the long game. Regardless of the issue, its
apparent urgency, or the value of winning this particular fight, let’s
take a page from Lessig’s #rootstrikers campaign. Always build to the
next fight. Engage your supporters at the highest level you can and help
them move into a more nuanced role. All the while, build your database,
encourage engagement, foster discussion, and be up front about the
longevity of the campaign. Frame things in terms of battles, if
necessary, but never lose sight that they are only skirmishes in a
greater theatre.